IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON No. 70139-8-1 DIVISION ONE In the Matter ofthe Detention of ERIK HANSON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,

v. ERIK HANSON, Appellant. UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: February 9, 2015 i

CD
en

Schindler, J. — ErikHanson appeals his civil commitment as a sexually violent 

### predator under chapter71.09 RCW. Hanson argues the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion for a mistrial, (2) denying his right to present a defense by refusing to treat a 

### fact witness as an expert, (3) denying his request for a Frve1 hearing, and (4) limiting the scope ofquestioning potential jurors during voir dire. We affirm.
FACTS ErikHanson was convicted in juvenile court in 1987 of firstdegree incest and indecent liberties. In 1989, Hanson pleaded guilty in juvenile court to firstdegree child
molestation.

1 Frve v. United States. 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923).No. 70139-8-1/2 In 1999, Hanson pleaded guilty to attempted second degree rape and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. InJanuary 2009, the State filed a petition to involuntarily commit Hanson as a sexually violent predator under chapter 71.09 RCW. Licensed psychologist Dr. Christopher North evaluated Hanson inSeptember 2005 and again in December 2012. Dr. Northdiagnosed Hanson with "Paraphilia, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) (coercive, females);" exhibitionism; cannabis dependence; social phobia; and antisocial personality disorder. The State identified Dr. North as an expert witness at trial. Hanson identified licensed psychologist Dr. Robert Halon as an expertwitness 

### who would testify at trial. Dr. Halon evaluated Hanson in2009 and again in2013. On the firstday ofthe trial on March 11, 2013, the State moved to exclude expert 

### opinion testimony from any defense witness other than Dr. Halon.2 Hanson's attorney toldthe court that "last week" during the deposition of a 

### Special Commitment Center (SCC)residential counselor for the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), the attorney learned that the counselor, John Rockwell, had "an opinion about Mr. Hanson and his treatmentthat he received at [the Sex OffenderTreatment Program] and the way he's internalized the 

### treatment." Hanson's attorney asked the court to allowRockwell to testify "as an expert insex offender treatment" for the limitedpurpose ofpresenting his opinion that "Erik Hanson has benefited significantly from treatment." 

### The State argued that Hanson had not previously disclosed Rockwell as a 

### potential expert but rather as a fact witness, that Rockwell had only limited contactwith Hanson, and that Rockwell did not provide sex offendertreatment to Hanson. Hanson's 2Hanson waived his right to be present at trial.No. 70139-8-1/3 attorney argued neither party had "followed any ofthe discovery guidelines in this case," and the State could have deposed Rockwell at any time. But Hanson's attorney told the court Rockwell's opinion might be unnecessary if Dr. North testifies that "Mr. Hanson internalized treatment and did very well with it, and still continues to live by the principles." The trial court reserved ruling "until after Dr. North testifies." At trial, the State presented the testimony ofthe victim ofthe 1999 conviction for attempted rape inthe second degree, Mary Beth Woll. Woll testified that inJanuary 1999, she was working as a coordinator at a church. Woll said that Hanson was 

### unemployed and homeless and asked her to help him. Woll made calls on Hanson's behalf to various community service providers, purchased groceries for him, and gave him cash for bus fare. Woll invited Hanson to come to her house andjoin herfamily for
dinner.After dinner, Wolldrove Hanson back to the homeless shelterwhere he was 

### staying. WhenWoll stopped to lethim out, Hansonclimbed out ofthe passenger seat and into the back seat of Woll's van to collect a bag ofgroceries. Hanson reached over 

### the backseat and began to strangleWoll. Woll testified that as she struggled against "a strap of some kind" around her neck, she heard herselfmaking "gurgling, unhuman sounds," and she thought she "was being strangled to death." Woll testified that itwas 

### "excruciatingly painful," and she eventually passed out. Woll said that when she woke up, she was lying face up on her back on the backseatwith Hanson on top of her and his face very close to her. Hanson began to apologize. AfterWoll yelled at Hanson to get out, he left.No. 70139-8-1/4 Woll testified that she had trouble swallowing, that she suffered bruising on her neck, and that she had broken blood vessels in her eyes, her neck, and all over herface that looked "bright red like a sun burn." The State next introduced into evidence Hanson's videotaped deposition and documents detailing his prior criminal convictions. The State also introduced into evidence a videotaped deposition offormer treatment provider Gaylen Gold. Gold testified about the admissions Hanson made during treatment, such as he "planned and had sexual fantasies several days" prior to sexually assaulting his fiveyear-old cousin, "poked her with a pick-up stick to make herfeel pain," and refused to stop when she asked. Hanson admitted that he "posted his sister as a look-out to prevent detection" while he assaulted his cousin. Hanson also admitted that he "anally raped his five-year-old brother.
. . and sexually abused him every night for approximately two years." Gold testified that Hanson told him that he "rubbed his penis against the buttocks and vaginas of his [two] eight-year-old cousins
. . . when he was nine years old [and] had them perform oral sex on him." Hanson also admitted that he "physically abused his [two] sisters
... to gain compliance for oral, anal, and vaginal sex . . . several times daily every otherweekend when the girls visited their biological mother" over "athreeyear period." Hanson said that he "sexually" fondled "various pets" and "killed a pet guinea pig by sticking a pencil inthe animal's vagina." Gold also testified that Hanson admitted that he "physically assaulted and planned to sexually assault a female teacher following two weeks of deviant fantasizing." Gold testified that Hanson also told him that he "planned to physicallyNo. 70139-8-1/5 

### assault an adult femalejanitor because she angered him" but "was discouraged from his plan forfear ofpossible intervention by a co-worker." 

### Dr. North diagnosed Hanson with paraphilia NOS, exhibitionism, and antisocial 

### personality disorder. Dr. North testified about the diagnosis. Dr. North described the "most dangerous" "antisocial personalities" as "psychopaths." Dr. North defined a 

### "psychopath" as "someonewho lacks a conscience,... has sort ofa 'mefirst' approach to the world," and "disregard[s] the feelings and the rights and welfare of otherpeople." 

### Outsidethe presence of thejury, Hanson's attorney objected to Dr. North's use of the 

### term "psychopath" as unduly prejudicial andlacking a properfoundation. Aftera lengthy colloquy, the trial court overruled the objection. When trialresumed, Dr. Northdescribed the "Hare Psychopathy Checklist 

### Revised" as a psychological constructhe uses to measurepsychopathic characteristics and determine whether a person isproperly deemed a psychopathfor clinical purposes. 

### According toDr. North, a scorebetween 25 and 30is generally accepted in aclinical 

### setting as indicating psychopathy. Hanson scored 27. Dr. North explained the score of 27. Dr. North described Hanson's psychopathic traits as well as the traits he viewed as inconsistent with psychopathy. 

### Dr. North testified that Hanson's paraphilia NOS and antisocial personality disorder are not curable. Dr. North stated that in his opinion, Hanson's mental 

### abnormalities made it likelythat hewould engagein predatory acts ofsexual violence if notconfined in a securefacility and described the actuarial tools he used to assess Hanson's risk of reoffense.No. 70139-8-1/6 On the next day of trial, the State asked Dr. North to give examples ofthe types ofcrimes he believed Hanson might commit inthe future. Dr. North testified, "I think that he would be likely to commit a rape, an attempted rape, a sadistic sexual assault,
or perhaps a sexually oriented murder." Hanson asked for a mistrial. Hanson objected to the reference to a "rape-murder" as inflammatory, not supported by the evidence, and 

### not previously disclosed by Dr. North. Hanson also objected to the use of the word 

### "sadistic"as inflammatory and not supported by the evidence, particularly inlight of the fact that Dr. North did not diagnose sadism. The trial court overruled the objection to "rape-murder," finding that "a reasonable 

### person could interpret the actions that [Hanson] took towards Mary BethWoll as a potential attempted murder." Because Dr. North testifiedas an expert, and because Hanson's attorney made no offer of proofthat Dr. North was specifically asked to 

### identify potential crimes in hisdeposition, the trial courtallowed the challenged testimony. The court also overruled the objection to Dr. North's use of the word "sadistic," finding that Hanson had admitted to conductwith "some evidence to support sexual sadism," including "injury to animals forsexual gratification." The court denied the motion for a mistrial. The court ruled that Dr. North's 

### opinion was not "sounduly prejudicial that itsprobative value was substantially 

### outweighed bythe danger ofunfairprejudice in this case." However, the courtgranted Hanson's requestfor a recess to review Dr. North's deposition and make an offerof proof. After additional and extensive argument byboth sides, thetrial court adhered to its previousruling. The court also noted that "murder" isincluded in the list of crimes that could constitute a "sexually violent offense" under RCW 71.09.020(17).No. 70139-8-1/7 

### Regarding sex offendertreatment, Dr. North testified that Hanson "benefitedfrom it insome ways" but not "in terms of reducing his risk for sexual reoffense." Dr. North stated that those who participate intreatment because it is required rather than by choice are unlikely to benefitfrom treatment. Dr. North testified that Hanson told him
that he did not want treatment. On March 19, the court considered Hanson's request to allow Rockwell to testify
as an expert witness. Hanson's attorney acknowledged that the defense had not indicated before trial that itintended to qualify Rockwell as a sex offendertreatment 

### expertto testify aboutwhether Hanson benefited fromtreatment. Hanson's attorney stated that until the defense deposition of Rockwell, the attorney "didn't understand" how often Rockwell met with Hanson and "didn't anticipate that Mr. Rockwell would 

### have an opinion" about "some of [Hanson's] risk factors and how he's managing at the SCC, and howhe's doing things differently" based on his internalization of treatment 

### principles. Hanson's attorney also acknowledged that Rockwell testified in the deposition that he did not treat Hanson and had notreviewed Hanson's treatment
records. 

### The attorney said the records were e-mailed to Rockwell "this morning." 

### Hanson's attorney stated Rockwell would testify about"his observations as to whether or not he perceives Mr. Hanson to be glib or have superficial charm" and whether Hanson is "social" or tends "to isolate." Hanson's attorney clarified, "I wouldn't have Mr. 

### Rockwell testify about" the psychopathy checklist, referto the checklist, or "askhim ifhe ranked it or finds [Hanson] has psychopathy." Nonetheless, the attorney stated, "[T]he 

### jurywill hear aboutdifferentfactors that an expertlooks at" on the psychopathyNo. 70139-8-1/8 checklist, "such as superficiality, glibness, [and] charm," to which Rockwell's "observations" of Hanson are "relevant." The State argued there was no basis to qualify Rockwell as an expert, there was
no reasonable excuse for the late notice, and the late notice prejudiced the State's case. 

### Following lengthy argument, the trial court ruled Rockwell could testify as a fact witness but not as an expert. The court ruled, in pertinent part: Given everything that has been expressed by both counsel, Ithink it is too late. Given that Ithink the State properly relied on the representation all 

### the way up until Monday morning oftrial that he wasn't going to be called as an expert, it's unfair play at this pointunder CR 26 (E)(4) to allow him to be an expert. Ido think he can testify, however, as to his personal 

### observations. Obviously, hearsay objections will be sustained. So in terms of his observations about Mr. Hanson's conduct, his behavior on the unit, whether he observed whether he's isolating himselfor not, Ithink 

### that's all perfectly acceptable testimony as long as he's got the foundation for it.



### . . . Certainly, Ithink there was a change of strategy on the part of the respondent's counsel late, which is understandable, but Ithink it's 

### unduly prejudicial to the State, and isfrankly a choice that was made too late
.... Interms of a lesser sanction, there really isn't, otherthan 

### continuing trial. At this point we're in the second week. There is no reasonable way to do that without severely prejudicing the State as well as inconveniencing the jurypool. We might lose somejurors ifthis continued too far out. We would have to have a mistrial and start over. And lastly, I 

### think in the interestof justice we can limit - he can still testify. We can limit the kinds of information he's going into as a fact witness. 

### Rockwell testified that Hanson was "[a]micable[,] a quiet person, polite, friendly, 

### respectful." Rockwell said that he had not observed Hanson misbehaving or manipulating people and would not "describe him as superficially charming" because 

### "his emotions appeartofit the content of what he's discussing." Rockwell also testified that he had not observed Hanson isolating himself and instead described Hanson as 

### "[sjociable to a limited degree" and becoming more social over the years.

8No. 70139-8-1/9 Dr. Halon testified as an expert witness on behalfofHanson. Dr. Halon testified that he reviewed numerous documents and met with Hanson twice in 2009 and 2013. Dr. Halon stated that in his opinion, Hanson does not sufferfrom a mental abnormality under the criteria ofthe sexually violent predator statute. Dr. Halon criticized the
overuse of paraphilic coercive disorder or paraphilia NOS nonconsent as a diagnosis. Dr. Halon stated that in his opinion, the evidence did not support such a diagnosis in 

### Hanson's case. According to Dr. Halon, "Ifyou can'tfind evidence of the recurrent and intense sexually arousing fantasies, and sexual urges for the force -- not the sex that 

### you get out ofit - but the force, you can't make the diagnosis of nonconsent." In his opinion, Hanson's description of hisfantasies when considered with his past behaviors indicated that he experienced arousal "to the sex, not the force." Dr. Halon testified that 

### Hanson's lack of sexually arousing fantasies of force "makes him a rapist instead of a mentally disordered offender." Dr. Halon stated that he was aware that Dr. North used the psychopathy 

### checklist in evaluating Hanson but testified that he did not use itbecause "it's immaterial." According to Dr. Halon, the results of the psychopathy checklist do not 

### "add anyinformation as to whether or notMr. Hanson has .
.. mental abnormality" and "doesn't say anything aboutvolitional impairment orpredisposition to commit sexually violentoffenses." Dr. Halon stated the psychopathy checklist merely measures "how 

### antisocial this person might be." Dr. Halon testified that use of the checklist is very 

### subjective and unfairwhenapplied to someone like Hanson who "has spent so much time in lockup and institutions" that "he hasn't had the chance to develop like a normal
adult would."No. 70139-8-1/10 Dr. Halon also described psychopathy as "a very adaptive
... evolutionary" function rather than "a disorder or a pathology." According to Dr. Halon, unlike the average person, psychopaths "don't really care a lotabout how other people feel,
.. . are much more concerned with themselves," and are "not apt to put themselves out in 

### dangerfor other people." But"there's nothingabout psychopathythat says they have 

### volitional impairmentor that they are predisposed to committing sexuallyviolent crimes." Dr. Halon also testified that he did not diagnose Hanson with antisocial 

### personality disorder because hefound "no sign of a pervasive pattern ofdisregard for and breaking the rights of otherpeople." Dr. Halon described most peoplewith antisocial personalitydisorder as "liars, expedient,"while Hanson appeared to be more honest. Dr. Halon also did not "knowof any evidence that suggests that specifically 

### antisocial personality disorder predisposes a person to commit sex crimes" orcauses "serious difficulty in controlling . . . sexual violentbehavior." Dr. Halon testified that a person with a mental abnormality that drives him to act 

### "out sexually in acertain way violently, predatorily," will "express signs andsymptoms of sexual deviance" even when "locked up" or "confined to a room," hospital, or prison. Dr. Halon testified to the lack of such signs and symptoms during the past years of
Hanson's confinement. Dr. Halon also testified that he had reviewed Hanson's records from sex offender 

### treatment and identifiedevidence indicating Hanson was using principles taught insex 

### offendertreatment"every day." Finally, Dr. Halon reviewed the same actuarial tools 

### usedby Dr. North toassess Hanson's risk ofreoffense andtestified abouthis differing
results.

10No. 70139-8-1/11 Thejury found the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Hanson is a sexually violent predator under chapter 71.09 RCW. The court entered an order of commitment to the custody of DSHS. Hanson appeals.
ANALYSIS Motion for Mistrial Hanson contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial after Dr. North "made unsupported and extremely prejudicial statements describing Hanson as a 

### psychopath and potential murderer." Hanson claims Dr. North "unexpectedly stated that Hanson exhibited signs ofclinical psychopathy," and the references to sadistic rape and murder were "unfounded," inflammatory, and prejudicial. 

### A respondent in a civil commitmentproceeding has a constitutional rightto afair trial. In re Detention of Ross, 114 Wn. App. 113, 121-22, 56 P.3d 602 (2002). Amistrial is warranted incivil commitment proceedings only ifthe respondent has been so 

### prejudiced that nothing short of a newtrial can ensure that the respondent receives a fair trial. Inre Detention ofGriffith. 136 Wn. App. 480, 485, 150 P.3d 577 (2006). We 

### review the decision denying a motion for a mistrial forabuse of discretion. In re Detention of Broten, 130 Wn. App. 326, 336, 122 P.3d 942 (2005). 

### Hanson does not accurately characterize the testimony, evidence, and argument 

### actually considered by the trial courtin deciding the motion for a mistrial. 

### Contrary to the characterizationin the briefon appeal, Hanson's attorneydid not 

### objectto Dr. North's testimony aboutpsychopathy as unexpected. And nothing in the record suggests that Dr. North's testimony about psychopathy was a surprise.

11No. 70139-8-1/12 Dr. Halon testified that he was aware of Dr. North's use ofthe psychopathy checklist based on his review of Dr. North's reports. Moreover, nothing in the record
indicates that Hanson's motion for a mistrial was based on Dr. North's use ofthe term "psychopath." Instead, the record indicates Hanson's attorney argued surprise to only Dr. North's testimony regarding Hanson's potential to commit a sexually motivated
murder. On appeal, Hanson does not provide argument or authority to establish that admission of such testimony inthese circumstances constituted a trial irregularity justifying a mistrial. Further, while Hanson acknowledges that his attorney read portions of Dr. North's deposition into the record as an offer of proof, Dr. North's deposition is not inthe record before this court and Hanson does not identify any error inthe court's determination that the attorney failed to establish surprise. We will not consider 

### arguments not supported by reference to the record and citation to authority. RAP 10.3(a)(6); Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Boslev. 118 Wn.2d 801, 819, 828 P.2d 549(1992). Hanson also claims Dr. North's testimony that Hanson may commit a sadistic 

### rape or sexually motivated murderjustified a mistrialbecause it is without a factual foundation. In particular, Hanson argues that because he had never committed a murder or rape, and because Dr. North had previously testified that he did not diagnose sadism, Dr. North's opinion ofHanson's potential for committing a sadistic rape or sexually motivated murder was inadmissible. ButHanson fails to explain how admission of this evidence constitutes grounds for a mistrial. Nonetheless, Hanson's argument ignores the court's rulingthat his attack

12No. 70139-8-1/13 on Wolland his admissions to acts involving sexual sadism created a sufficientfactual foundation for Dr. North's opinion. The record supports the trial court's ruling. Wolltestified that she thought she was going to die and described what she believed to be her "spirit" leaving her body and then returning. Hanson admitted in his 

### deposition that he had fantasies about raping Woll throughoutthe entire time he spent with her and that when he realized later that he could have killed her, he was "scared . . . , like it could have happened." Thejury also heard Gold's testimony 

### describing Hanson's admissions to wanting to make his cousin "feel pain" while he was sexually assaulting her, to physically abusing his brother and sisters "to gain 

### compliance" during his sexual assaults against them, and to "sexuallyfondling" and 

### killing the pet guineapig. Hanson does not establish the courtabused its discretion in finding Dr. North's opinion was supported bysufficientfacts in the record. Hanson also fails to demonstrate that Dr. North's reference to sadistic rape and 

### sexually motivated murderwas so inflammatorythat thecourt abused its discretion by 

### denying his motion for a mistrial. "Testimony regarding thefuture dangerousness of [sexually violentpredators], by its nature, isprejudicial," butthe "probative value ofthis testimony ishigh anddirectly relevanttowhetheran individual should becommitted as a sexually violent predator." In reDetention ofThorell. 149Wn.2d 724, 758, 72P.3d 708 (2003). The trialjudge isin the best position to determine prejudice and, here, 

### determined the probative value ofDr. North's testimony outweighed the danger ofunfair prejudice. State v. Smith, 124Wn. App. 417, 428, 102P.3d 158(2004). On this record, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hanson's motion
for a mistrial.

13No. 70139-8-1/14 Expert Testimony Hanson next contends the trial court violated his due process right to present a 

### defense by refusing to allowRockwell to testifyas an expert.3 Without citation to the record, Hanson asserts he "needed Rockwell's professional opinion and evaluation of Hanson's behavior" after "Dr. North changed his expert opinion on the stand and suddenly testified that Hanson was a psychopath." This assertion is a mischaracterization of the record. Our review of the record shows that prior to trial, 

### Hanson's attorney and his expert, Dr. Halon, were aware ofDr. North's use of the 

### psychopathy checklist as well as the score he computed for Hanson. Nothing suggests 

### Dr. North "changed his expertopinion" regarding psychopathy or Hanson's score while "on the stand." Similarly, the recordestablishes that Hanson's attorneydid not seek to 

### qualify Rockwell as an expertin assessing psychopathy according to thechecklistbut, instead, planned to ask Rockwell about his observations of the kinds of behavior described in the psychopathy checklistwithout actually referring to the list by name. Further, the record shows Dr. Halonaddressed the diagnosis ofDr. North, 

### including the checklist. Dr. Halon reviewed and disagreed with Dr. North's diagnoses, 

### psychopathy assessment, andconclusions. Dr. Halon presentedextensive anddetailed testimony addressing use ofthepsychopathy checklistand Dr. North's diagnosis. Dr. Halon also testified about his evaluation and opinions ofthe psychological components 

### ofHanson's mental health and history and Hanson's apparent daily use of sex offender

3Hanson does notchallenge the court'sdecision toexclude thetestimony on othergrounds. See, e.g.. Jones v. Cityof Seattle. 179 Wn.2d 322, 343, 314 P.3d 380 (2013) (late-disclosed testimony will be admitted absent a willful violation, substantialprejudice to the nonviolating party, and the insufficiency of sanctions less drastic than exclusion).

14No. 70139-8-1/15


### treatment principles while inconfinement at SCC. On this record, Hanson fails to identify or demonstrate error in the trialcourt's rulingconcerning Rockwell's testimony. Frve Hearing Hanson contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for a Frve hearing to 

### determine the admissibility ofDr. North's diagnosis of paraphilia NOS (coercion). Citing In re Personal Restraint ofYoung, 122 Wn.2d 1, 857 P.2d 989 (1993), and In re 

### Detention of Berry, 160 Wn. App. 374. 248 P.3d 592 (2011). review denied, 172Wn.2d 1005, 257 P.3d 665 (2011), the trial court denied the motion for a Frve hearing. In Berry, we held that the properfocus of Frve "isthe science upon which the 

### expert's opinion isfounded," and there was no question that "the science at issue is 

### standard psychological analysis." Berry, 160Wn. App. at 379. Although the defendant had "identified] scientific criticism of the criteria and reliability" of the paraphilia 

### diagnosis, hedid notestablish thatitwasno longergenerally accepted. Berry, 160Wn. App. at380. Weconcluded thatchallenges to thereliability ofa diagnosis ofparaphilia NOS nonconsent went "to the weight of the evidence, not itsadmissibility." Berry, 160 Wn. App. at 382. We adhere to our decision in Berry and conclude the trial court did not err in 

### denying themotion for a Frve hearing. Here, as in Berry, Hanson had theopportunityto cross-examine the State's expert witness and to present his own expert, Dr. Halon, to 

### testify to the shortcomings of the diagnosis. Accordingly, "[t]here was noevidentiary
error and no violation ofdue process." Berry, 160 Wn. App. at 382.

15No. 70139-8-1/16
Voir Dire Hanson contends the trial court improperly limited the scope of voir dire. Specifically, Hanson challenges the court's ruling that his attorney could not askjurors to place themselves in Hanson's position. On March 12, the trial court reviewed a list of potentialjurors. A number ofjurors asked to be questioned outside the presence of the otherjurors, including juror 2. After the State questioned juror 2, Hanson's attorney asked a number of questions, including "whether or not, if you were in [Hanson's] position, you would want somebody like you
on thejury, not because you are going to release or commit him, because you can be fair." After asking several other questions, at the request of Hanson's attorney, the court excusedjuror 2 for cause. Afterthe court excusedjuror 2, the State asked the court to prohibit Hanson's attorney from asking "jurors to put themselves inthe shoes of this party or the other party." After lengthy argument, the trial court ruled, inpertinent part: I'm going to instruct counsel not to ask the jurors to put themselves in the defendant's shoes. However, you can ask about bias. You can ask, you know, whether they can be fair and impartial. You can say that your client's liberty is
... at riskand can they judge them fairly. There's a lot of 

### ways to get at the kind of bias you are wanting to expose. Ithink it's fair to do that, but Ithink that that particular question is a hot button, and I'm going to instruct you to avoid it. 

### A trialjudge has considerable discretion inshaping the limits and extent of voir dire. Lopez-Staver v. Pitts, 122 Wn. App. 45, 50, 93 P.3d 904 (2004). "The ultimate test here is not whetherthe trialjudge should or should not have allowed any single question or even line ofquestioning. The test is whetherthe court permitted the 

### [litigant] to ferret out bias and partiality." Pitts, 122Wn. App. at 51. "Absent an abuse of

16No. 70139-8-1/17 discretion and a showing that the accused's rights have been substantially prejudiced thereby, the trialjudge's ruling as to the scope and content of voir dire will not be disturbed on appeal." State v. Frederiksen, 40 Wn. App. 749, 752-53, 700 P.2d 369 (1985); accord, State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 747-49, 168 P.3d 359 (2007) (where trial court gave ample latitude to explore prospectivejurors' religious beliefs relating to death penalty, defendant could not show substantial prejudice resulting from court's tentative rejection ofcertain proposed questions). On this record, Hanson fails to establish any abuse ofdiscretion or any resulting prejudice inthe trial court's ruling limiting voir dire. We affirm the civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under chapter 71.09 RCW. 

# y„Q/./iWe.cy<

WE CONCUR:



# "Trie Ke-/ -i Q£7X| ^h

17